To ask what you think of this situation and who's being unreasonable?

[HillProp]

John is married to Lisa who he shares DC with. He also shares DC with Kate (so Lisa's DSC). Lisa works part time (although not massively part time to be fair!) due to young DC so tends to take on more childcare for all of the children than John.

Whenever there is an argument between John and Lisa, one of Lisa's responses is that John do X Y or Z for his own kids from now on. For example: 'You can cook for your own kid from now on' meaning her DSC. She will say this even if DSC are there.

Lisa's DSC have told their Mum, Kate, about this who has now told John she's annoyed about this and thinks it's cruel of Lisa. DSC generally like Lisa and they get on well typically.

Lisa feels like John leaves a lot of his children's care to her and this is her retaliation when things blow up between them although it isn't always actually anything to do with the DC but this is her way of 'getting to him', by refusing to do anything for his older DC.

Who's unreasonable?

Lisa for using DSCs care as a means to punish John?

Or Kate for having a go at John about this comment?

Or options 3.. John for putting too much onto Lisa in relation to his older DC?

All of them, but Kate less than the others.

John should pull his weight as a father, with all the children.

Lisa should not use the stepchildren in arguments, and especially not in their presence.

Kate is basically right, but would be more effective if she kept her temper (easier said than done, I know) and said e.g. that it made the children anxious about their position in the family, rather than using emotive words like 'cruel'.

@Sofielou

The OP is about using the kids to get what she wants. That is the premise of the post. It isn't emotive language. The post talks about Lisa having conversations in front of the childern about not feeding them intentionally - for retaliation.

The OP explicitly says that aside from this incident Lisa and the kids get along well.

So you’ve actually fabricated almost all of your post and created your own narrative, that departs quite drastically from the actual scenario here.

I have never recognised the division between the practical and emotional but you’re quite right and I will carry this forward in my own step parenting journey.

Except we have absolutely no idea who's view that is, do we. Has Lisa openly said "I do this to get at him"? Is that John's interpretation of what's happening, when the reality is Lisa is sick of being taken for granted and is putting boundaries in place? Is it Kate's take on the situation, and neither John nor Lisa have said this is what's happening?

We don't know.

@Sofielou

You can't have it both ways. You say things are different when it is parents together with those kids but those famlies aren't drawing lines between mine and yours. Many step parent posts differentiate between their bio kids and step kids which immediately makes it very different than a non step family. It happens in non step homes that one kid doesn't like the meal or whines about the food - and that doesn't mean parents then say I am not cooking for you or feeding you then. Or in a non step home with mutiple or mixed age kids, sometimes one kid does have to be inconvenienced for another kids activity - versus in a step home where the feeling is that bio kids should never be inconvenienced for step kids. For example in the step parent thread someone just posted that they only want to go for a walk with their bio kids and not step kids. In a non step family, there isn't that separation where you see everything as mine and not mine when it comes to the kids. If you want to complain and be seen like non step families then you would have to accept all the kids in the family as being equal members of the family and not with the major dividing line between bio and step kids. You can see them unequally and then want to be responded to as though you don't! When a non step parent complains about their kid it is in the context of that kid being secure within the family and a part of the family unit. That is different from a complaint by a step parent who sees the child they are complaining about as not mine and not my responsibility and not part of my family.

My point being, we don't know who OP is. If she's Lisa, she may know for a fact she's doing this in retaliation. If she's Kate, she may have interpreted this herself; heard it directly from Lisa, or heard John say that it's his interpretation...... etc.

@Midlifemusings

Honestly - I've read your last response twice and I can't make head nor tail of it. I'm not sure how it relates to what I've said. You seem to making reference to other threads about different issues, too, which is very confusing.

It's clear we aren't going to agree so perhaps best to disengage at this point.

@Sofielou

That is true in that we could assume in every post that there are unknown viewpoint and we could create intentions and motivations for everyone involved who aren't directly posting. It would make it hard to ever respond to a scenario if we consider every what if that might be possible from every viewpoint in every situation.

If a step mom posts - we could say well we don't know what your partner thinks or his ex thinks or the step kids think so we will make up all their intentions and motivations and create an alternate scenario before responding to your viewpoint.

John needs to step up and help out more but Lisa is a bitch unreasonable for making DSC part of the argument in front of them. They both need to talk it out away from the kids and grow up a bit!

I was responding to this comment you made - just didn't quote as the quote threads get long. You were talking about the differnece in responses between step and parent and so I responded to that.

Doing a part time job and most of the childcare and housework is far far more work than a full time job and helping out a bit. John has no idea how much work Lisa is actually doing. Lisa is resentful but she shouldn’t be treating her DSD differently to her own children. Kate hasn’t done anything wrong.

Yes but on most threads we at least know who OP is! In this case it's made even harder by the fact that OP has presented a scenario talking about all parties in the 3rd person, so we don't even know what they feel or think, or what they've heard themselves or are assuming to be the case, etc.

Eg.

If OP was Lisa, we could ask whether she feels resentful at having to do so much parenting or whether she just uses the "I'm not cooking for your kids" line to "get back at" John.

If OP was Kate, we could clarify whether she had heard Lisa directly say she does it in retaliation or whether those are John's words, or her own assumption. Etc.

We can't clarify any of those things unless OP reveals her own position within the situation.

Imagine if OP comes back to say "she" is in fact John... 😂

I think, given the way the info in the OP is presented, it’s more likely to be John than Lisa posting.

I really doubt it’s Lisa.

The pretending to be totally neutral (but bring far from neutral in the language or details presented) style is infuriating.

Why is Lisa a bitch, and John just “needs to step up and help more”?

Dads always get a little slap on the wrist as opposed to stepmums. Sometimes the dad’s behaviour is overlooked altogether.
Even the op had him as third option and a bit of an afterthought.

Well if @HillProp is “John” then he should be in no doubt that he’s lazy and unreasonable.

Actually looking at at, I’d put money on John being the OP.

That’s why him being unreasonable is the afterthought option.

The thing is, when you create a situation where you are consistently "leaving childcare" of SC to your partner then you are creating a situation where they are consistently doing you a big favour. When people then upset you/get into an argument with you it is pretty standard to then retract that favour. So from John's POV - the person who needs to prioritise the kids best interest - it's best to just not put yourself in the situation where you are taking the piss with childcare, meaning any time you get into an argument with your partner they are currently doing you a favour they are then likely to retract, because this sort of thing is bound to happen unless the "Lisa" wants to live as a martyr, continuing to do favours for someone currently upsetting her. Which is unlikely.

Nobody can be expected to look after your kids for you while you are arguing with them. Parents need to understand that and avoid such situations.

Nobody can be expected to look after your kids for you while you are arguing with them. Parents need to understand that and avoid such situations.

This is a very good point. This applies to partners as much as anyone else. You don’t become less of a parent just because you have a partner… and if you’re treating that partner like shit then don’t be shocked if you have to do everything for your children without their help.

Thanks for the replies!

Sorry for annoying some posters with the style! I'm not actually any of them, one of the ladies is my sister and asked me to post for opinions.

I'm sure it'll be entirely obvious when I explain some more details but here we go..

For clarity as a few poster's have got this wrong, Lisa works part time but it's not far off full time.

The SC involved are older primary age.

Kate and Lisa do not speak often but are okay when face to face. Lisa has mentioned in the past that she feels taken advantage of by both John and Kate as Kate also asks for help sometimes from Lisa when she's off work.
Kate doesn't have a partner so does sometimes rely on Lisa as well.

Kate doesn't have a partner so does sometimes rely on Lisa as well.

Lisa needs to stop that...Kate sorts her own childcare out the cheeky cow.

Less sympathy for Kate than before knowing even she "relies" on Lisa despite knowing Lisa feels it's too much. Both parents need to sort their kids out without expecting so much from Lisa.

John needs to parent his DC and not out this responsibility on someone else!